Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
1. I'll defend my position as often as possible and wherever my position is challenged.
2. If someone wants to (sincerely) challenge my position I'm not going to refuse to talk to them. Plus I sincerely believe Jesus' invocation to share the Good News has an altruistic basis.
3. Yes, I think everything in the bible is true. Literally and allegorically true.
@ Lion IRC
"Plus I sincerely believe Jesus' invocation to share the Good News has an altruistic basis."
What "good news"? Barring the questionable "miracles", there is nothing jesus imparted that we do not already know. Love thy neighbor? Let the children come onto me? Turn the other cheek? That is all basic civilized and empathic human behavior.
What "good news"?
@Dave Killens
The good news (according to the bible) is that anyone who wants eternal happiness can have it.
And of course Jesus spoke eternal truths - not newly invented opinions. Why would He say anything other?
@ Lion IRC
"The good news (according to the bible) is that anyone who wants eternal happiness can have it."
1) A good part of this thread discusses the accuracy of the bible. I am of the opinion that the bible is more a work of fantasy and fiction than what really happened.
2) A promise or threat? IMO what is presented is a mob boss extortion attempt.
3) If I follow the dictates laid down by the bible in the expectation I would spend eternity in heaven praising god and relentlessly kissing it's ass. That is repugnant.
I think you must mean literally or allegorically true. So you deny the fact of species evolution then? The catholic church accepted this fact a long time ago, with their limitless resources why would they do that if there were any evidence to falsify it?
@Lion Cub Re: "1. I'll defend my position as often as possible and wherever my position is challenged."
Aaaaaaand still no direct answer to my question. (As if I did not see that coming... *rolling eyes*...) Did they teach reading comprehension in whatever school you attended? Or did you just sit in class and pick your nose and daydream about heaven while the teacher was explaining something? (Rhetorical question, by the way.) Anyway, I was asking specifically, "From WHAT are you defending your god/your position?" In other words, exactly what threats and/or offenses have been made to your belief in your omniscient/omnipotent god do you find it necessary to defend against? You don't even have to list all of them. Just one or two threats/offenses would be fine. I'm just trying to figure out what type of threat/offense to your faith is so astronomically monumental that your all-powerful/all-knowing god is unable to handle it without your help. I mean, is your god sitting up there on his throne going, "Hey, Lion! Need you to do me a favor! I heard Billy-Bob down in Middle-of-nowheresville has been talking shit about me lately. As if that is not bad enough, he has also been saying that YOUR faith in me is ridiculous. So, get your ass on your computer that was created by all those stupid scientists, log into Billy-Bob's chat site and defend yourself for god's sa-... I mean, for MY sake! I would take care of it myself, but it is Super Bowl season, and I am really busy right now tallying all the prayers and trying to decide which team will win this year."
Re: "2. If someone wants to (sincerely) challenge my position I'm not going to refuse to talk to them. Plus I sincerely believe Jesus' invocation to share the Good News has an altruistic basis."
Pssssst..... *whispering*... hey... mr. brainiac... if you do not tell somebody your position, then that somebody will not know your position to be able to challenge it. funny how that works, huh?... *raising eyebrow*... Anyway, I do totally agree with standing up for yourself and retaliating if you are minding your own business and somebody comes along and tries to push their own beliefs on you. Yep, I can certainly relate to that (obviously). Or, another option (depending on the situation), you could just stand quietly and politely listen to what they have to say. Then, when their steam finally runs out, simply smile at them, pat them softly on the shoulder, and turn and walk away while quietly laughing to yourself. (That is one of my favorites to use, by the way, whenever I get the opportunity... *chuckle*...) Now, all that being said, YOU came HERE by your own choice, on your own free will. (I'm assuming. There isn't somebody standing beside you with a loaded spitball straw pointed at your head forcing you to be on this site, is there? If so, then type some sort of code to us to let us know you need help.) Uh, anyway, where was I?... Oh, yes... So, yeah, not only are you here by choice (yes, no, maybe?), in your very first post you made it very clear you are here to take a defensive stance... even though.... (so far as I know, at least)... nobody here had made any offensive remarks to you about your faith before your arrival.... *scratching head with puzzled look*... YET, you then go getting your undies all in a wad when folks here start questioning and ridiculing your beliefs AFTER you tossed them out there on the table for all to see. Could you please explain to me again exactly how that is OUR fault???
Now, in all fairness, I know the AR welcomes all folks from all walks of life and from any and all belief systems. And that is great, as far as I am concerned. Because, as such, I have been able to learn more about different religions/cultures here over the past two years than I was able to learn during all those years of my life prior to my joining. It has been a fantastic experience, and I am still learning something new here with each passing day. Interestingly enough, despite my sarcastic assholeish nature that I regularly frolic around in most of the time on here, I actually feel sorry for you in a way, dear ol' Lion. For you have made it glaringly clear you have zero desire to even attempt to learn anything. Such a shame, too.... *shaking head sadly*... But, hey, whatever floats your boat, kitten. Stay chained to your beloved bible and your archaic faith as long as you want, or perhaps try opening your eyes and ears and actually listen to what people are trying to tell you. No chrome off my nose one way or the other. You see, what you fail to see is that theists like you are always welcomed here just as much as anybody else, because theists like you make it that much easier for the atheists here to point out to others just how harmful religion can be to individuals and to society as a whole. Love ya. Mean it... *smooch*...
Oh look who's turned up.
I've encountered this individual before.
His track record is ... let's just call it "interesting" shall we?
@Cali Re:"I've encountered this individual before."
This quote sounds stolen from many a Star Trek episode. Could be regarding Mudd, Khan, Q, etc.
Hopefully, Lyin will be an equally devious foil.
You're Catholic right?
@ Nyar
Oh boy, just go on and spike my big guns (LOL)
But go ahead Lyin is no longer talking to me it seems. I believe we have had run ins before where he has retired with some open wounds.
@Old Man Re: "But go ahead Lyin is no longer talking to me it seems."
Yeah, I know how you feel... *depressed sigh*... I don't hear from him anymore either... *sniffle*... Was it something I said? After all, I was being nice, and polite, and helpful as much as I could.... *tapping chin with index finger*... Hmmmm.... I wonder... Do you think he could have possibly seen through my bullshit?... *contemplative look*...
I'm sorry I don't have 24 uninterrupted hours a day to respond to every post immediately.
I don't recognise your user name and the only arguments I abandon are those with ppl who blatantly exhibit bad faith - disingenuous, time wasting, unskilled trolling, passive aggressive, insulting the crap out of you then expecting to continue the discussion as if they are doing you a favor letting you speak.
...anyway, back to your post, the events in the bible which are reported in the absence of (human) eye witnesses are revealed to the Gospel writers by God's Holy Spirit. Thus we have Moses writing about events which he himself never saw first hand. And to biblical theists that's not controversial. We don't dispute the events in the Garden of Eden based on a lack of eye witness evidence. So why wouldn't we likewise take it as Gospel (so to speak) that Jesus was alone in the wilderness with satan?
@ Lion IRC
"the events in the bible which are reported in the absence of (human) eye witnesses are revealed to the Gospel writers by God's Holy Spirit."
A wild claim that can not be evidenced or proven.
God's holy spirit? Up here in Canada we call that "beer".
@Lion King Re: "We don't dispute the events in the Garden of Eden based on a lack of eye witness evidence."
Who is "WE", exactly? Do you have a mouse in your pocket as you type? And do you SERIOUSLY believe everything about the Garden of Eden to be literally true? If so, that would definitely explain quite a bit about you.
@Tin-Man
What I mean is that there's heaps of stuff in the bible which reports events that the writer didn't see first hand.
You nit pick about whether the Gospel writers could or couldn't have been eye witnesses, in order to quibble about the historicity of what they report, but why focus on that narrow issue when there's a whole mountain of biblical fact claims that derive solely from special revelation.
And even if you agreed that something reported was in fact seen firsthand by the person in question, you don't believe what they say in any case. So how does being an eye witness change anything for the bible errancy crowd?
Your invariable response to any/every bible writer is always;
- you were never there,
- you never saw that.
- you're mistaken.
- you're making it up.
- even if you were there, so what, that's still not evidence.
- how come I never saw a miracle?
@ Lyin
there's a whole mountain of biblical fact claims that derive solely from special revelation
There s an even bigger mountain of rubbish that also comes from "special revelation" that is demonstrably either made up or plain nonsense.
What evidence do you have for your claim of "special revelation" I would like to see that!
@Lion Den Re: "You nit pick about whether the Gospel writers could or couldn't have been eye witnesses, in order to quibble about the historicity of what they report..."
Oh-dear-oh-dear... Tsk-tsk-tsk... Someone has worked himself up into quite a tizzy. I'm afraid you have me confused with somebody else, Leo... *chuckle*... I haven't said anything about the gospels. They mean nothing to me. I really couldn't care less about them... *soothing voice*... Sooo.... Take a deeeeep breath.... Caaaaalm down... Relaaaax.... There you go... Better?... Now, go find the correct target and aim that little nonsensical spiel in the proper direction. There's a good little scamp.... *playfully patting butt as he heads outside*... *talking to self*... Ah, they're so adorable when they start learning to roar...
I think you mean there's a whole mountain of biblical claims that are claimed to be derived solely from special revelation.
An unevidenced claim is utterly meaningless. Hitchens's razor applies...at least if you want to make such claims in here anyway. Theist tend to pile these on, as if sheer volume lends them some sort of collective veracity. I've never understood why. Perhaps you can explain why when asked to evidence acclaim, so many theists try to prop it up with another unevidenced claim, and so on and so on...
That's what I thought.
You don't know their actual (named) identities either.
That's gotta make it hard for you to contest their status as eye witnesses.
(Want me to post Catholic teaching about whether John was an eye witness?)
@ Lion
You don't know their actual (named) identities either.
No one does. But we do know that the synoptic gospels were not written before approx 70CE. We also know that the text itself says that the writer did not witness any of the events but in some cases had them relayed to them...hearsay.
We know that 'Mark' was copied (600 verses verbatim) in 'Matthew', only the Jewish Lore, Law and customs were corrected showing that Matthew was probably a Jew while Mark was not, or at least a hellenised Jew. Luke does mention that he copied from other sources… Luke is clear from the first two verses that he is narrating the story as he has been told by others. He is not a witness in of himself, he has collected the stories from others.Hearsay.
We know without doubt that early versions of both Luke and Matthew were circulated widely that did not contain the Birth narrative nonsense. That was a much later addition
'John' was written in the early 1st century. The style did not exist before then. This makes any surviving eye witness accounts impossible, also it is widely accepted that John was written by up to 4 separate authors over a period of 25 to 30 years. Never mind the later interpolations and retractions. Eye witness no, hearsay...no...a reworking of earlier stories in a more modern style, probably.
@Old man shouts
Don't you mean... the earliest extant manuscripts WE have? There's no reason to think earlier partial drafts of the Gospel weren't written before the surviving version we have.
And it stands to reason that a compilation of eyewitness testimony gathered in the early years after Jesus' death would take many subsequent years to publish in a final version.
@ Lion
Don't you mean... the earliest extant manuscripts WE have?
No I do not.
The earliest FRAGMENTS of gospels we have date to respectively: John 125CE Mark !60CE. The earliest COMPLETE gospels date to mid 3rd century...What was in the original synoptic gospels is a matter for conjecture and historical investigation, not theist wishful thinking.
And it stands to reason that a compilation of eyewitness testimony gathered in the early years after Jesus' death would take many subsequent years to publish in a final version.
You do not history well do you? How about a couple of major events that would ensure you do not have a linear account? Like oh, I don't know the great fire of 60CE and then the rebellion that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Diaspora of 70CE?
Are you so ignorant of actual history? No the gospels were based on the earlier writings of Paul, just embellished and absorbing other, local and pagan legends, same same as happens in current times.
@ Lyin
Don't you mean... the earliest extant manuscripts WE have? There's no reason to think earlier partial drafts of the Gospel weren't written before the surviving version we have.
Haven't you been reading? The EARLIEST fragment of any gospel is John (P52) Dated to the earliest at 125CE, the EARLIEST fragment of Mark is dated to 160CE (P31? from memory)
Mark could NOT have been written before 70CE....if you read just a little bit of history you would know why. But I don't expect those wearing bible glasses to actually read anything. Maybe you should look at this Wiki page before coming upo with any more apologetic BS.
The EARLIEST COMPLETE manuscripts we have are in Greek and date a couple of hundred years after the alleged events and at least 100 years after the synoptic gospels were written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
Everybody! Sing along now! (To the tune of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight")
He's a whacko-he's a whacko
He's a whacko-he's a whacko
He's a whacko-he's a whacko
He's a whacko-he's a whacko
In the A-R
The mighty A-R
The Lion has no bite.
In the A-R
The mighty A-R
The Lion has no biiiite....
Oh, heeeeeee-ee-ee-ee-ee...
He-done-run-awaaaay...
Yeah, heeeeeee-ee-ee-ee-ee...
He-done-run-awaaaaay...
Jesus fuckin’Christ ... I read this an hour ago and still can’t get this fuckin song out of my head!
....yeah, heeeeeeeeeee.... he-done-run-awaaaay
@Tin Re: Lyin has no bite.
I've been going through a Johnny Cash phase lately so my eyes briefly fooled me when I looked at your lyrics. The song "Do Wacka Do" (which oddly is Roger Miller and not Cash but sort of sounds like it could be) came to me. That song doesn't in any way mirror our latest adversary, other than the chorus, which if taken alone does sum him up well.
Anyway, I'm rambling, but it is still more coherent than the hero of your song.
@Paper Lion
Oh, yay! You are still here!... *clapping excitedly*... I was worried we had lost you forever. So wonderful to see you haven't abandoned us... *sigh of relief*...
Sadly, I'm about to walk out the door to go help my neighbor work on a house today, but I will be back later this afternoon. So please don't go anywhere. Please promise you won't leave me. (At least not without first saying, "Goodbye.") We have sooooo much catching up to do! I am SO excited... *giggle-giggle*...
Oh, one thing before I sign out, though. Be a pal and learn to identify who you are addressing in your posts. That would be fantastic and cut down on much confusion, thank you.... *beaming smile*... Most people tend to figure that out for themselves after their first few posts, but we understand if you are a little slow on the uptake. We won't hold that against you... *gently patting top of head*....
Okay, off to work I go. Try not to miss me while I'm away... *smooch*...
I know who I'm replying to.
There's a button right there under your post which links my reply to the post I'm responding to.
But I gather you don't know that I'm replying to you because of how the reply software renders the thread.
I shall start using the @ tag
@Tin-Man
@Lion(ess) Re: "I know who I'm replying to. There's a button right there under your post which links my reply to the post I'm responding to."
Ah, yes. Well, zippity-doodle-hunky-dory-doo-for-you. It is so nice to hear that YOU know to whom you are responding. That certainly takes a lot of weight off MY shoulders... *sigh of relief*... Still, in the interest of those of us who are lacking in the skills of mind reading, please humor us mental simpletons and perhaps make it a bit more obvious as to whom your replies are directed. That would be very sweet of you... *smiling*...
@Lion
I know discussions can go off into tangents but I only had one question... I don’t assume someone’s belief or god or anything, so I had asked, “Do you believe the bible is inerrant?”
I see you put yourself as a 1 on the scale (link in your profile). I’d place myself as a 6.
Edited to add...I just read through the other thread. I somehow missed it before. Still would like an answer, I don’t like to assume. My guess is you do. If you do, then can you define for me, “inerrant”. Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not.
Pages